Leadership Can Be Taught? LO2127

Andrew Moreno (amoreno@broken.ranch.org)
Sun, 16 Jul 1995 18:46:38 -0700 (PDT)

Replying to LO1785 --

>Date: 26 Jun 1995 08:51:06 -0400
>From: "Barry Mallis" <bmallis@quickmail.markem.com>
>Subject: Re: Leadership Can be Taught? LO1785


>I agree with you completely. My use of the phrase "eye for the big
>picture" certainly leaves room for interpretation! Let me try to go
>further in light of your observation.

>We on this list easily use words like vision, focus, mental model. The
>reader generates an image, and speaking simplistically, we communicate if
>not on the same page, then at least in the same verse, chapter or tome.

>Following this thought in relation to "eye for the big picture" and your
>own thoughts, Andrew, I'd say that the the eye discerns the big picture by
>becoming sensitive to the power of "peripheral vision". I think someone
>else on the list may have used that phrase already. A leader's role is
>enhanced by becoming aware of that ability most of us naturally have to
>take into account and juggle in our random access memory myriad pieces of
>information from the many side shows surrounding our presence. I have
>always been impressed by leaders who could make connections between
>ostensibly disparate elements, synthesizing them into something fresh,
>insightful and evocative.

Hi Barry,

I've been thinking about vision. It sounds a lot like Bateson's
learning level 3, which was discussed earlier on this list by
Marilyn Darling and others.

For those of you who aren't familiar with this, the logical levels of
learning are;

Learning I: acquiring content, correcting errors within a set of
Learning II: a change in the process of Learning I - acquiring
the context of content, correcting errors by changing sets or
sequences of sets of content alternatives.
Learning III: a change in the process of Learning II -
generating the context of context. Enlightenment.
Learning IV: a change in Learning III - generating the context of
of context of context. Evolution.

I agree that all of us have the innate ability of learning level
3. John Warfield writes in a related post:

>If a situation is complex, (b) they lack the mental capacity to
>construct the relational patterns which, alone, may have the capacity to

I believe differently. I believe that people are learning
machines and that everyone has the mental capacity to reach
enlightenment. I think the reason people don't use this ability
is because they've learned to associate certain states with the
learning process.

If enlightenment is similar to vision, then how can we develop
enlightenment in people who will be our future leaders? I think
the key lies in learning level 4. Someone wrote that each level
contains a map of the level below it; learning level 4 contains
a map of learning level 3. If this is so, then the way to
develop learning level 3, enlightenment, would be to jump to
learning level 4. Unfortunately, the logical levels of learning
don't specify HOW to do this.

I've found toolsets which enable a person to function at
learning level 4, but you probably wouldn't believe me if I told
you about them. I think that one, and this is only one, of the
most important tools in this toolset is a sense of humor. An
ability to laugh. When you laugh, you have the opportunity to
escape your world. People sometimes say, "In a few years, we'll
laugh about this." Why wait?

Instead of, "Let's seriously study this situation," [and
possibly narrow our focus at the same time.] We could ask, "How
much fun could we have doing this?", "How much more can we have
to chuckle about?" and ask ourselves, "Isn't most of this
silly when you REALLY look at it?"

Andrew Moreno